Speaking to Boston's 96.9 FM radio program "Jim and Margery" on Monday, Democratic Senate challenger Elizabeth Warren admitted that she is not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts.

Click to expand...

Ms. Warren's statement comes as a surprise to the many clients she's provided legal services to over the past decade, including the law firm of Simpson, Thacher, and Bartlett, which listed her as "of counsel" in the 2009 brief they submitted to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of their client, Travelers Insurance.

From the article she stated that she gave up her NJ law license because she couldn't keep up with the Continuing Education (CLE) requirement. It's 24 hours over 2 years over 12 hours a year!!!!New Jersey Courts
And you can usually get it for under $200 and sometimes even online....
She couldn't find one long day a year to keep up with CE??????
Wow, I have three times that requirement for my licenses in my profession and I exceed that minimum easily.........
As a professor didn't she have the months of June,July and August off class????

The post indicates that this is a federal case. You do not need to be licensed to practice law in Massachusetts to practice law in federal courts located in Massachusetts or anywhere else. Federal courts decide who can practice before them, and individual states canāt tell federal courts that an attorney cannot practice before them. Itās that whole supremacy clause thing. Constitution 101 and all that.

It is really well established that a federal district court can admit an attorney to practice before it even if the attorney is not licensed in that state. You most certainly do not need to be licensed in the state where a federal court of appeals sits to appear before the federal court of appeals.

Truebut two things comes to mind
1) She needs someone to support her "pro hac vice" application and there has to be a written record of that.She has to reveal to the court whether she is admitted to practice in that court or have someone to support her application.
2) She hasn't revealed her list of cases that she worked on and whether any were non-Federal cases which would pose a problem. In light of this disclosure, do you think she should reveal the list to determine whether she worked on any state cases??

Truebut two things comes to mind
1) She needs someone to support her "pro hac vice" application and there has to be a written record of that.She has to reveal to the court whether she is admitted to practice in that court or have someone to support her application.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think I said that.

Be that as it may, since virtually all of this latest "scandal" report is coming from right wig web sites, most of which are notorious for reporting things which are either A) not true or B) grossly exaggerated, I'm thinking it's more likely than not that those applications were filed and approved. Otherwise the outlets jumping all over this would have gone ahead and explained that a lawyer does NOT need to be licensed in the state to try a federal case and tried to hang her for not doing the federal thing correctly.

It seems to be their modus operandi to make a great hyping splash of some perceived wrongdoing based on supplying only half of the information - knowing that their readers and followers fall for it every time and seldom, if ever, bother fact checking it. That gets the story out there and any retraction is done quietly at some later date - long after the false story has gone viral and infected every right wing conservative who will never let it go no matter how much proof is offered to the contrary.

And if the Mainstream Media refutes it, well, either the original believers of the story either don't read MSM or, if they do, will claim they're all liars, anyhow.

2) She hasn't revealed her list of cases that she worked on and whether any were non-Federal cases which would pose a problem. In light of this disclosure, do you think she should reveal the list to determine whether she worked on any state cases??

Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who has made fighting for workers a focus of her Senate campaign, was a hired legal gun for a steel conglomerate trying to dodge paying health and pension benefits to thousands of retired coal miners, records show.

Here's a link to an article in which a few legal professors exonerate Prof Warren. *(It would have been nice if they disclosed that they donated to her campaign- as one poster mentioned...) and comments finding fault with their arguments....

Brown is a do-nothing Senator and Warren is a carpet-bagging idealist. If Coakley had decided to run any semblance of a campaign or demonstrated that she didn't automatically deserve the "Kennedy Seat" we would be talking about Brown as a local political hack with little skill and less intelligence. If the Obama administration had put Warren in some powerful position in the administration- where she belongs-, we'd be talking about how she's still fighting the Wall Street lobbyists about re-regulation and insulation of the sectors, etc... Neither of these options are good choices for Senator from the Great Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It really sucks that we can't get decent people to run for public office these days, but then again, when did we ever?